BELLAMY NATIONALISM IN OHIO 1891 TO 1896
by WILLIAM F. ZORNOW
Instructor in History, Case Institute
of Technology
One aspect of the Progressive movement
which is of special
interest is the growth of native
radicalism as distinct from imported
Marxism. In this movement Edward Bellamy
became one of the
chief spokesmen. He was a utopian
socialist who believed in plan-
ning, regimentation, efficiency, and the
nationalization of all in-
dustry, but he also hoped to allow
sufficient scope for individualism
in his new society. His chief thoughts
were expressed in his book
Looking Backward, 2000-1887. These ideas were destined to live in
the utopian ideals of the middle class
largely, for they did not take
hold in the factories or on the farms.
His great message was that only
under a collective society could true
American individualism
flourish.
Looking Backward was effective propaganda against the evils
of the American industrial-capitalistic
society. The middle class re-
formers took hold of his program for the
nationalization of all
industry and tried to carry it out in
the cities. Part of this effort
can be seen in the creation of clubs to
foster this principle. The
activities of these so-called
Nationalist clubs in Ohio may be taken
as typical of similar club activities in
other states.
When Looking Backward became a
best seller in 1888, Cyrus
F. Willard suggested to Bellamy that a
club be formed which would
promote his ideas. The suggestion was
received with enthusiasm,
and in the summer of 1888 the first
Nationalist club was established
in Boston.1
The organization spread with great
rapidity and in less than
a year Willard could write that the
movement boasted 6,000 mem-
bers and 500,000 "believers"
and that more than fifty newspapers
had come out unreservedly for
nationalism.2
1 Bellamy himself suggested the name.
John H. Franklin, "Edward Bellamy and
Nationalism," New England
Quarterly, II (1938), 751. See also Arthur E. Morgan,
Edward Bellamy (New York, 1944), 247-249.
2 Cyrus F. Willard, "A
Retrospect," Nationalist, II (1889), 38.
152
BELLAMY NATIONALISM IN OHIO 153
Before the movement ended, it had risen
to about 165 clubs.3
There were sixty-five in California,
sixteen in New York City, eleven
in Massachusetts, and the rest were
scattered over twenty-four other
states.4
Ohio, which may be considered as a
typical state in the move-
ment, got its first club at Cincinnati
in 1889. Several other clubs
were organized in Ohio, including the
Second Nationalist Club of
Cincinnati, the Franklin Club of
Cleveland, the First Nationalist
Club of Cleveland, the Edward Bellamy
Nationalist Club of Akron,
the Nationalist Club of Columbus, and
the Nationalist Club of
Findlay. This does not, however, tell
the whole story. There were
many other organizations in Ohio which
fostered the principles of
nationalism although they were not
directly tied to the movement.
In 1891 in Cleveland a Citizen's
Alliance was formed by Ralph
Beaumont of the Knights of Labor. It was
a kind of urban-farmer's
alliance, which believed in much of
Bellamy's and the Populist
programs, including such things as
nationalization, abolition of
private banks, free coinage of silver,
and the issue of legal tender
treasury notes in lieu of bank notes.
Many of the most active
members of the club were also members of
one of the Cleveland
Nationalist clubs.5 Also in
Cleveland the Central Labor Union
adopted a platform that was definitely
"nationalistic" in temper
although it was not affiliated with
Bellamy's movement directly.6 In
1892 in Dayton a Citizen's Club was
formed which through its efforts
nearly doubled the People's party vote
in that city in 1892 from
what it had been in 1891.7
Any club which believed in the national-
ization of industry won the approbation
of Bellamy whether it was
part of his movement or not.
In accordance with Bellamy's wishes no
effort was ever made
to weld these clubs into a nation-wide
organization.8 When the sug-
gestion was made in 1890 for a central
committee, Cyrus Willard
pointed out that there were 127 clubs in
twenty-seven states. It was
3 Franklin, loc. cit., 754;
Morgan, Edward Bellamy, 275.
4 Morgan, Edward Bellamy, 266.
5 Cleveland Plain Dealer, May 6, 1891.
6 New Nation, II (1892), 619.
7 Ibid., 716.
8 Edward Bellamy, "Progress of
Nationalism in the United States," North Amer-
ican Review, CLIV
(1892), 743.
154
OHIO ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
his wish to wait till at least
two-thirds of the states had clubs before
attempting a union, but nothing was ever
done.9
In the states this policy of
independence was carried out too.
There was from time to time an exchange
of notes among the various
Ohio clubs concerning their respective
programs, and each of the
local clubs corresponded with Bellamy in
Boston, but nothing in the
nature of a permanent organization was
evolved. There were a few
examples of local cooperation. The
Cleveland Nationalist Club
Number One issued a circular in February
1892 to various reform
and labor organizations in Cleveland to
send delegates to a con-
ference for the purpose of uniting for
action upon the municipal
issues coming before the people in the
spring elections.10 No perma-
nent organization, however, came of
this.
The membership of the club in Boston had
been rather aristo-
cratic at first, which was the wish of
Bellamy, and had limited its
enrollment to 250 picked members.11 In
time, however, when the
second club was formed there in October
1889 Henry R. Legate, its
founder, reacted against this policy.12
The Ohio clubs seem to bear out
Bellamy's wish that the organ-
ization should concern itself with the
"conversion of the cultured
and conservative class." The Akron
club was as exclusive at the
beginning as the First Nationalist Club
of Boston. It was founded
in March 1891 when thirty well-to-do
Akronites signed the Declara-
tion of Principles. At that time the
pro-tem president, J. M. H.
Frederick, wrote, "We propose to
close up our charter membership
at our meeting in one week, for the
purpose of keeping our body
pure at the beginning."13 An
examination of the names of the mem-
bers of the two Cleveland clubs and a
comparison of this list with
a Cleveland directory indicates that the
members were all of the
professional and middle class. Most of
the men in the Cleveland
clubs were also to be very active in the
Ohio Populist party after
1891. This exclusiveness was generally
true of the other Ohio clubs
as well as those in most of the other
states.14
9 Cyrus F. Willard, "News of the
Moment," Nationalist, II (1890), 274.
10 New Nation, II
(1892), 96; Cleveland Plain Dealer, February 15, 1892.
11 See letter of Bellamy to Cyrus F.
Willard quoted in Morgan, Edward Bellamy,
249.
12 Ibid., 252.
13 New Nation, I
(1891), 115.
14 F. I. Vassault, "Nationalism in California," Overland
Monthly, XV (1890),
660.
BELLAMY NATIONALISM IN OHIO 155
The nationalist movement began primarily
as a religious and
spiritual urge for brotherhood, which to
become effective had to
bring about a change in the economic
organization of society.15 The
clubs had begun as talking societies,
discussing such things as
"evolution,"
"environment," and "humanity." In time they came to
discuss public ownership of railroads,
control of liquor, and muni-
cipal ownership, which was a burning
issue in all the major cities
at that time.
In the society which these men
discussed, there would be noth-
ing but fraternal cooperation. The
kindly side of man was to de-
velop, and there was to be an
affectionate relationship between the
workers and employers. It would be in Bellamy's
own words a "true
democracy."16 This
philosophy found considerable reception among
the middle class. As these men viewed
the existing society, they
were impressed by the "inevitable
inclination toward association
and combination . . . illustrated in the
huge trusts and syndicates
of the present age." Believing in
evolution it was conceivable to
them that this consolidation would
eventually lead to "one grand
industrial association for the benefit
of the whole people."17 They
came to feel that municipal and national
ownership of utilities and
railroads would help speed up this
process of evolution toward the
desired society. Since they wished to do
everything to achieve na-
tionalization as soon as possible, it
was only natural then that they
should become interested in questions of
public ownership.
The attitude of others toward these new
clubs was varied. The
mass of labor did not follow Bellamy.
The workers shunned doctrin-
aire Marxism, but they joined Bellamy only
in small numbers too.
Many of the unions and other
workingmen's societies believed in
nationalization of private enterprise,
and Bellamy applauded them
for it although they did not join his
movement directly. Labor
wished only for a "fair day's wage
for a fair day's work."18
The churches too had definite opinions
on socialism. Most of
them were interested in social problems,
but like labor few of them
15 Morgan, Edward Bellamy, 289.
Bellamy always regarded his movement as
religious in nature. He wrote, "It
is the religion which Christ taught. . . . It is
Christ's doctrine of the duty of loving
one's neighbor as one's self applied to the
reorganization of industry." New Nation, I
(1891), 53.
16 New Nation, I (1891), 53.
17 World Almanac, 1896, 136.
18 Aaron Abell, The Urban Impact on
American Protestantism, 1865-1900
(Cambridge, 1943), 59.
156
OHIO ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
joined with Bellamy. One of the great
leaders of the Christian
Socialist movement, Rev. Washington
Gladden of Columbus, Ohio,
urged all to "venture on the path
of nationalization cautiously."19
He believed that there should be some
partnership in which labor
shared the profits as well as the loss.
He believed in state regulation
of industry, but he felt that Bellamy
was proceeding too rapidly.20
Not all the clergy, however, followed
Gladden when he helped
create the Christian Socialist movement
in 1889. Some like Rev.
G. Frederick Wright of Oberlin deplored
the church's interest in
social problems as "misguided
sentimentalism and cowardice."21
Others like Rev. George P. Bethel
followed Bellamy. He became
active in the Columbus Nationalist Club
which he had helped to
found.
Whether the reformers agreed with
Bellamy or not, they were
all agreed on one thing. The increasing
violence of the industrial
scene was undermining the heritage of
freedom of America and
only a despotism could result. These men
who grasped at Bellamy's
collectivism as a solution, knew full
well that if a tyranny came it
would assume a capitalistic form. For R.
Heber Newton had cor-
rectly observed, it "would not
require many panics for property to
cry aloud for some strong man to come
forth as the savior of
society."22
It was to avert this increasing danger
that the "conservative and
cultured" class had resorted to
Bellamy's philosophy. It was a
middle-of-the-road philosophy which
would appeal to a middle-of-
the-road person. Bellamy stood midway
between Marxism and
Christian Socialism, for he taught that
relief could only come
through an economic reorganization of
society, but he did not over-
look the ethical and spiritual sides.
In Cleveland and Cincinnati the clubs
had begun as talking
societies, as they had in other states.
The members usually rented
a hall in a quiet part of town and
filled it with easy chairs and
plenty of timely literature on social
questions. On Sunday after-
noons and evenings they would assemble
there to read and discuss
19 Washington Gladden, "The Social
and Industrial Situation," Bibliotheca Sacra,
XLIX (1892), 399.
20 Abell, Urban Impact on American
Protestantism, 70, 71, 76, 78.
21 G. Frederick Wright, "Ministers and Mobs," Bibliotheca
Sacra, XLIX (1892),
679.
22 R. Heber Newton, Present Aspect of
the Labor Question (New York, 1886), 42.
BELLAMY NATIONALISM IN OHIO 157
current problems. From time to time the
more enlightened members
would read papers to the other members
concerning special prob-
lems.23 It was an easy step,
therefore, to pass from discussion to
action. At first the clubs acted as a
sort of pressure group usually
in purely local matters. Sometimes they
were concerned in almost
trivial things. The matter of a sewer on
Whitman Street and the
disposition of the dirt which was being
excavated caused the
Franklin Club several afternoons of
vigorous debate and ended in a
series of letters to the mayor which
accomplished nothing.24 Many
of their interests were, however, of
broader scope. They dealt with
problems of municipal ownership of
utilities, street railways, and
other matters of municipal reform.
Whenever they carried their
fight into the field of state politics
it was usually over a problem
involving a local matter. In February
1891 the Cleveland National
Club issued a protest to the state
legislature against the pending
municipal reform bill on the ground that
it would place Cleveland
"at the mercy of combinations of
contractors."25
The Ohio clubs generally followed one of
five courses when
dealing with local problems: (1) They
would write letters of protest
to the mayor's office. (2) When the
matter was considered to be
more urgent they would carry their cause
directly to the mayor's
office by appearing as a committee of
protest.26 (3) Whenever any
official either in local, state, or
national politics did anything which
fostered the cause of nationalism, the
clubs would issue letters
and circulars commending his action. In
this way they kept the
people informed as to the various
nationalist drifts in the country.27
(4) They did research into special
problems and made their findings
public.28 (5) They circulated
petitions of protest and sent these to
the city councils.29 Many
times these methods brought results. A
typical incident occurred in Cincinnati.
Of this city it had once
been noted that "there is not a
better city in the country for reform
than Cincinnati."30 The
Nationalist clubs here were very strong,
and when the gas ownership fight began
in 1891 the clubs did
23 New Nation, I (1891), 497.
24 Cleveland Plain Dealer, May 4, 1891.
25 New Nation, I
(1891), 51.
26 Ibid., I (1891), 322.
27 Ibid., II (1892), 91.
28 Ibid., I (1891), 274.
29 Ibid., II (1892), 27.
158
OHIO ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
valuable research into the matter of the
cost of gas manufacture,
proving to the people that General
Hinkenlooper's company was
making an exorbitant profit and that the
price of gas could easily
be cut. The clubs also prepared evidence
on the cost of a munic-
ipally owned electric plant and
circulated a petition on which they
got twenty thousand signatures favoring
it.31 In Cleveland the
clubs fought for lower gas rates,
municipal street railways, and a
municipal light plant.32
Since these tactics of the clubs
achieved only a modicum of
results, Bellamy became convinced that
to achieve his new society
it would be necessary for his clubs to
enter politics. This decision
in 1891 cost Bellamy some important
support.33
Bellamy was not interested in the old
parties. In his opinion
"remedy must come through a new
party.34 The spring of
1891
was marked by close cooperation between
the Nationalists and the
rising Populists.35
A convention of Farmers' Alliances and
other reform groups
had been scheduled to meet at Cincinnati
on February 23, 1891,
but since this date conflicted with the
opening date of the Kansas
legislature it was postponed till May
19.36 Bellamy took an active
part in the preconvention arrangements.
He urged the convention
to be truly representative of the entire
nation rather than of one
class only. He urged all Nationalist
clubs and papers to send dele-
gates to the convention. In the absence
of any central organization
each club was asked to notify him
whether they intended to send
delegates or not.37
As far as the platform was concerned he
hoped that they would
also adopt one which would be national
in scope.38 He also wished
that their planks would be
"nationalistic" as well as national. He
30 Ibid., I (1891), 450.
31 Cincinnati Post, February 20, 1892. The paper claimed that the
Nationalists
could have gotten at least 100,000
signatures because the people were so interested
in the matter.
32 New Nation, 1 (1891), 83, 270, 767.
33 The Theosophists, for example, who
had provided great stimulus for the move-
ment in 1889 and 1890 were alienated.
Another interesting fact was that when
Bellamy decided to enter politics the
number of his clubs stopped increasing. See
Morgan, Edward Bellamy, 267-274.
34 New Nation, I (1891), 197.
35 The farmers of Lincoln, Nebraska,
were offered a copy of Looking Backward
free with each subscription to the Alliance,
a Populist paper. John D. Hicks, The
Populist Revolt (Minneapolis, 1931), 131.
36 Appleton's Annual Cyclopedia, XVI (1891), 220.
37 New
Nation, I (1891), 220, 236.
38 Ibid., 248.
BELLAMY NATIONALISM IN OHIO 159
suggested such planks as government
ownership of the railroads,
the telegraph, and the telephone and
municipal ownership of water,
gas, electricity, and street railways,
as well as government regulation
and eventual ownership of all mines.39
On May 18 the delegates began to arrive
in Cincinnati. Senti-
ment was growing for the creation of a
third party and there was
plenty of nationalist talk in the air.
Many Bellamy clubs were
present, and each had come prepared to
push the adoption of its
program with great vigor. The Citizen's
Alliance of Cleveland
came prepared even to press the
suggestion that the new party be
named "The Nationalist party."40
There was no set idea of conforming to a
basis of representa-
tion. Nearly two-thirds of the states
sent delegates. There were
1,417 delegates. Of this number 1,049
came from only five states,
and of this group 407 came from Kansas
and 317 from Ohio.41
Vermont, New Hampshire, New Jersey,
Mississippi, and Georgia
were entirely unrepresented.42 There
were very few representatives
from either New England or the South.
The South was not inter-
ested in a national third party
movement, preferring to support
Democrats in the national elections and
confining their third party
activities to the local slate.43 Therefore,
the South sent only thirty-
six delegates.
The representation being what it was
there could be no doubt
that the convention would fall under the
control of the Kansas and
Ohio delegations.
The Ohio Nationalists were very active
in the convention. Of
the Ohio delegation more than one
hundred had come from Hamil-
ton County alone and they were nearly
all Nationalists.44 These
men began sampling the prevailing
sentiment of the other delegates,
and they were jubilant because they
thought an overwhelming
"nationalistic" spirit
pervaded the whole convention.45 The
Ohio
delegation, led by the Nationalists,
favored the immediate creation
of a third party and the calling of an
independent Ohio state con-
39 Ibid., 222, 236, 245, 246.
40 Cleveland Plain Dealer, May 13, 1891.
41 Ibid., May 18, 1891.
42 Ibid.
43 Ibid., May 21,
1891.
44 Ibid.
45 New Nation, I (1891), 284.
160
OHIO ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
vention. A committee of five was
appointed to translate this desire
into action.46 The Kansas and
Illinois delegations followed suit.47
When the convention was finally
organized the Nationalists
were given five places on the committee
on resolutions, including
Dr. Tuckerman of the Franklin Club who
was chairman. There were
also eight Nationalists on the central
committee.48
The Nationalists had overestimated their
strength, however, for
when they introduced their program into
the various committees,
they discovered that the farmers were
not prepared to go along with
them in carrying out Bellamy's program.
The only nationalist
plank to gain recognition was one
providing for public supervision
of all means of transportation and
communication, with eventual
public ownership if the current abuses
could not be corrected.49 It
was a very modest concession to Bellamy.
They were content, however, with this
"mild dose of national-
ism."50 On the last day
of the convention, Nationalists from nine
states, including Ohio, adopted a
resolution declaring the meeting
a success and agreed to do everything to
"achieve its upbuilding."51
When the results of the meeting reached
Bellamy he remarked
that the platform was "just about
big enough to get born on," but
was hopeful that the party would develop
more fully in time. He
urged his Nationalists to do
"missionary work to spread knowledge
of Nationalism among members so that the
platform of 1892 can
be Nationalistic not only in spirit but
in terms too."52 As far
as
their attitude toward the coming
campaign was concerned, he wrote,
"The clubs stand for more advanced
principles than any party is
likely at once to take up, and it would
be an unwise policy for them
as clubs to engage in any line of work
which would compromise
the completeness of their
doctrines."53 It was this attitude of aloof-
46 Cleveland Plain Dealer, May 18, 1891.
47 Ibid., May 20, 1891. Illinois sent 110 delegates under Colonel
S. F. Norton
of Chicago.
48 New Nation, I (1891), 284. See also Morgan, Edward Bellamy, 278.
49 Appleton's Annual Cyclopedia, XVI (1891), 833.
50 New Nation, I (1891), 284. Bellamy's total program would have
provided
for: (1) nationalization of all industry, (2) economic
equality for all citizens regard-
less of sex, (3) peaceful and nonrevolutionary methods,
and (4) abolition of class.
See New Nation, II (1892), 17-18.
51 Ibid., I (1891), 286; Cleveland Plain Dealer, May 21,
1891.
52 New Nation, I (1891), 277-278.
53 Ibid., 278. For a fuller statement of Bellamy's attitude
toward the Cincinnati
convention platform, see ibid., 485.
BELLAMY NATIONALISM IN OHIO 161
ness which kept the Nationalists from
playing a greater role in the
coming political events.
The Ohio delegates at the convention had
been favorable to the
immediate creation of a third party.
Most of them had been Nation-
alists. The success or failure of a
third party in Ohio depended on
the reaction of the farmers. Therefore,
attention focused on the
meeting of the Farmers' Union which met
in Columbus on May 27,
1891. There were several farmers'
organizations in Ohio, including
the National Farmers' Alliance, the
Farmers' Alliance and Industrial
Union, the State Grange, and the
Farmers' Mutual Benefit Society.
An attempt had been made in August 1890
to unite all these societies
together in the Farmers' Union led by
Colonel J. H. Brigham of
Fulton, Ohio.54
The two strongest elements in the Union
were the secret
Farmers' Alliance and Industrial Union
and the open National
Farmers' Alliance. The latter, led by
President W. H. Likins, pre-
ferred to enter the third party arena,
while the former was reluc-
tant.55 The third party could
not succeed unless there was agreement
between these two groups. Many members
urged the Union to
sponsor a third party even though the
secret society opposed.56
When the Columbus meeting was held, the
Farmers' Union split
over the question of the advisability of
creating a third party.57 In
spite of this stalemate many of the
delegates went home still favor-
ing a third party.
These enthusiasts went ahead and called
a convention to meet
at Granger Hall in Springfield on August
6. Seven hundred dele-
gates came, representing the open
Farmers' Alliance, labor, and the
Nationalists. John Seitz, an ex-Democrat,
Greenbacker, and union-
labor man was nominated for governor
with Frank Rist as his run-
ning mate.58 The platform was
a restatement of the Cincinnati
platform, but it was a bit more
"nationalistic." They favored the
immediate government ownership of all
means of communication
54 Cleveland Plain Dealer, May 18, 1891.
55 Ibid., May 18, 1891. See also ibid., January 3, 1891.
56 Ibid., May 18, 1891.
57 The vote was very close, 64 to 63.
Bellamy regarded this close vote as
indicating that the third party
adherents had great strength in Ohio. See New Nation,
I (1891), 300.
58 Rist had been nominated largely
because of his claim that he could deliver
four thousand votes from Hamilton
County. See Cleveland Plain Dealer, August 7,
1891.
162
OHIO ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL
QUARTERLY
and transportation. This met with
Bellamy's hearty endorsement.59
He was elated over the adoption of a
further nationalist plank,
sponsored by the Hamilton County
Nationalists, favoring the abol-
ition of profit in the liquor industry
by providing for government
manufacture, sale, export, and import of
all liquor.60
Toward this new Ohio party the reaction
was varied. The New
York Times wrote, "The People's Party of Ohio will cut about
the
same figure in the state canvass as the
third parties in the past."61
The Cleveland World wrote,
"The party is absolutely composed of
the old resurrected Greenbackers and the
new socialistic dreamers of
the Bellamy 'Looking Backward' school.
The proposition to make
a great gin-mill of the government is no
more preposterous to the
minds of such people than it is to set a
government printing press
to work to grind out paper money for the
people."62 The Spring-
field (Mass.) Republican sensed the importance of the
coming
election in Ohio when it wrote, "If
in the tremendous pulling to-
gether of the old party lines which will
be seen in Ohio this fall on
the issues that are to enter into the
next national canvass, the party
of the Alliance and the socialists can
make the big demonstration
for a state ticket so freely predicted,
we may be prepared to see
some unlooked for changes in the
political situation to meet the new
shaping of voting forces."63
The Populists concentrated their attention
on Ohio. It would
be the first time that the new party
made an effort to carry an
eastern industrial state. The outcome of
the election would deter-
mine the future growth of the new party
and decide what the issues
would be in the coming national election
of 1892.
The major parties nominated their
candidates. The election was
to be fought over the tariff issue, and
the Republicans sought to
conciliate the farmers by selecting one
of their own as candidate for
lieutenant governor.64 They concentrated their main efforts
on
59 New Nation, I (1891), 463.
For the platform see Appleton's Annual Cyclo-
pedia, XVI
(1891), 693.
60 New Nation, I (1891), 463.
It was this plank which cost the People's party
the support of the Ohio Prohibition party
which favored the total abolition of liquor.
61 August 10, 1891.
62 August 11, 1891.
63 Quoted in New Nation, I
(1891), 463.
64 New Nation I (1891) 349-350. Bellamy contended that the
Republicans were
even ready to sacrifice John Sherman, whom the farmers especially
disliked, to get
their votes.
BELLAMY NATIONALISM IN OHIO 163
proving to the voters that the Populists
represented a socialist
menace to society. Allen Thurman of the
Democratic central com-
mittee warned the voters against the
Populist doctrines as the
"rankest kind of Socialism."65
Senator Carlisle of Kentucky, who
was stumping Ohio, warned that
nationalization would mean that
twelve million people would be placed on
the government payrolls.66
These arguments were used throughout the
campaign by the old line
politicians. It is difficult to know how
telling their effect was.
The Populists brought up their heaviest
guns. They organized
seventy-five of Ohio's eighty-eight
counties and delivered more than
five hundred campaign speeches.67 Of
these seventy-five counties
fifty-four put local tickets in the
field.68 During the summer the
campaign grew quite intense and there
were frequent charges that
the regular parties were packing the
meetings of the Populists to
disrupt their proceedings.69
The Populists expected to elect at least
thirty members of the
Ohio legislature, hold the balance of
power there, and poll at least
100,000 votes for governor.70 The
Grange, National Farmers' Alli-
ance, Knights of Labor, Citizens'
Alliances, and the Industrial Union
of Ohio were actively supporting the
campaign.
When the votes were counted, McKinley
polled 386,739 to
Campbell's 365,228. Seitz ran a very
poor third with 23,472.71
Bellamy was as optimistic as ever, even
when the returns fell
far short of his expected 100,000. He
wrote the 23,000 votes were
all one could "reasonably expect in
the initial brush with the en-
trenched parties in Ohio." He had
big hopes for Ohio in 1892 when
he added, "If this does not mean
60,000 votes in 1892 then our
political weather vane is out of
kilter."72
The Populists had made their biggest
effort in 1891 in Ohio
and failed. There were many factors
which help to explain this
failure. Even though the party had made
a great effort to win, it
did not compare with the efforts made by
the other parties. The
Populists simply lacked the finances
necessary to outdo their oppo-
65 Ibid., I (1891),
412.
66 Cleveland Plain Dealer, May 25, 1891.
67 New Nation, I (1891), 525.
68 Ibid., 620.
69 Ohio State Journal (Columbus), August 29 1891.
70 New Nation, I (1891), 525; Cleveland Plain Dealer,
May 25, 1891.
71 Tribune Almanac, 1891,
280.
72 New Nation, I (1891), 668.
164
OHIO ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
sition. The Cincinnati Commercial
Gazette had remarked that the
farmers never gave up money except for
"taxes and a wooden
coffin."73 This remark may have
been unkind, but it was true. It
was a difficult matter to get the
farmers to contribute enough money
to carry on a more extensive campaign. A
second factor was the
absence of adequate leadership. This was
partially due to the fact
that the Nationalists, who had been
largely responsible for the
creation of the Ohio Populist party,
remained aloof from the cam-
paign, as Bellamy wished them to do. The
third factor was that the
Alliance, which together with the
Nationalists, had been the great
promoter of the party went into the
campaign seriously divided.
Many of the farmers had been alienated
by the alleged radicalism
of the Cincinnati platform and the
proposed third party. Because
of this the farmers had split at the
Columbus Farmers' Union con-
vention. No effort was made to heal this
schism either by modify-
ing the platform or by nominating a
ticket which would include the
dissatisfied group. Thus the Populists
lost considerable of their
support from the farmers. The question
naturally arises of which
way did the malcontents turn? Many of
the Alliance men had been
pro-Democratic in the spring of 1891 and
had exacted from various
Democratic candidates pledges that in
exchange for Alliance votes
they would support rural legislation.74
In June, however, Governor
Campbell was asked whether the Democrats
would alter their plat-
form to meet the demands of the farmers.
Campbell replied in the
negative since in his opinion the
Democrats had already done as
much for the farmers as could be
expected.75 Thus rebuffed by the
Democrats and not desirous of joining
the new party the dissatisfied
farmers could either refrain from voting
or vote Republican. The
Republicans had been very cagey during
the campaign and had
worked hard to sell the tariff to the
farmers and the wool growers
in Ohio.
In ex-governor Foraker's opinion the
party drew very heavily
from this dissatisfied section of the
Alliance.76 Since the strength of
the Alliance was estimated at 25,000,
and if Foraker's opinion that
most of the Alliance went Republican is
correct, this could have
73 September 10, 1891.
74 Cleveland Plain Dealer, May 14, 1891.
75 Ibid., June 6, 1891.
76 New Nation, I (1891), 365.
BELLAMY NATIONALISM IN OHIO 165
cost Campbell the election. For had the
dissatisfied farmers voted
either Democratic or Populist, McKinley
might have lost the
election.
The poor showing of the Populists in
Ohio did not deter the
party in that state from continuing its
efforts. Early in February,
Bellamy, writing from Boston, said that
in his opinion the battle
in 1892 would be over "public
ownership and control of natural
resources, and of the industries of the
country in the interest of all
the people."77 During
1892 the nationalist interest quickened in
the Populist movement. The St. Louis
convention of Populists
showed definite tendencies toward
increased nationalism.78 At
Omaha, Bellamy's followers gained a
greater voice. The platform,
that "incoherent intermingling of
Jeremiah and Bellamy," showed
many socialist tendencies.79 Bellamy
happily noted that the "Nation-
alist planks were emphasized."80
At the convention 250 Nationalists
assembled for a private conference, and
according to Bellamy this
number represented only a fraction of
the people at the convention
who sympathized with his ideas.81 The
convention nominated Gen-
eral Weaver, an ex-Dayton man, to be its
standard bearer.
The Ohio Populist convention assembled
at Massillon on
August 17, drafted a platform, and made
its nominations for state
offices, including Judge Everett D.
Stark who was a Nationalist. The
platform was nearly the same as the one
the previous year and
included the nationalist planks
concerning government ownership
and liquor control.82
During the campaign the Nationalists
took a more active part
than they had done before, largely
because of the fact that Bellamy
was beginning to more heartily endorse
the new party. The Ohio
campaign, however, was very tame in
comparison with the Populist
efforts in 1891. The results proved that
Bellamy's "political weather
vane was out of kilter," for Weaver
polled only 14,853 votes
against 404,115 for Cleveland and
405,187 for Harrison.83 Here
77 Ibid., 77.
78 Morgan, Edward Bellamy, 294-295.
The platform provided for the nationaliza-
tion of banks, currency, railroads,
telegraph, and telephone. See also New Nation, II
(1892), 145-146, 152-153.
79 Frederick E. Haynes, Third Party
Movements since the Civil War (Iowa City,
1916), 263.
80 New
Nation, II (1892), 434, 440.
81 Ibid., 440-442.
82 Appleton's Annual
Cyclopedia, XVII (1892), 608.
83 Tribune Almanac, 1893, 294.
166
OHIO ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
again the Populists might have been a
deciding influence because of
the closeness of the vote. The schism in
the Farmers' Alliance had
as yet not been healed, and, too, the
farmers had become further
disturbed over the liquor plank in the
platform. It is quite conceiv-
able that had the schism in the Alliance
been healed, sufficient votes
could have been taken from Harrison to
give the state to Cleveland.
The Populist vote fell off in
sixty-seven of the counties. Weaver
suffered the heaviest defeat in Hamilton
County, where the party
had been left a complete wreck after the
1891 election.84 The
Hamilton County Nationalists, who had
been so strong at the
Cincinnati convention and also at the
Springfield convention, were
also driven from the political arena and
their place taken by the
Cleveland Nationalists.85 The
loss of 2,085 votes in Cincinnati
could have been decisive in giving the
electoral votes of Ohio to
Harrison.
The year 1893 was marked by a
diminishing nationalist activity
in Ohio. The Cleveland clubs vigorously
fought for the creation of
a municipally owned coal yard to sell
coal at cost to the needy.86
They were also active in the fight for
an inheritance tax on the
ground that "the growth of
overshadowing wealth in a few hands
is a grave danger to free
institutions."87 Their activities in local
reform, however, were greatly reduced
after 1892.
The year ended on a discordant note. The
depression led to
numerous strikes and lynchings in Ohio.
The Populists assembled
in Columbus on July 4 two hundred strong
and proceeded to nom-
inate John Bracken for governor with M.
B. Cooley for lieutenant
governor.88 In the campaign the tariff was again
the major issue,
and this time the Populists and
Nationalists were not at all decisive
in the election. McKinley carried the
state by 80,995 votes over
the Democratic nominee, Neal. Bracken
polled a lowly 15,563
votes.89
During the following year the labor
difficulties increased.
There were a number of violent coal
strikes in Ohio and the governor
84 Cleveland
Plain Dealer, November 6,
1891.
85 By 1894 the Hamilton County Nationalists were sending
only one delegate to
the Populist convention, which was a
far cry from the hundred who had gone in 1891.
86 New Nation, III
(1893), 36, 56.
87 Cleveland Leader, January 16, 1893.
88 Appleton's Annual Cyclopedia, XVIII
(1893), 590-591; Ohio State Journal,
July 5, 1893.
89 Tribune Almanac, 1894, 339.
BELLAMY NATIONALISM IN OHIO 167
frequently sent troops to preserve
order. In January troops were
sent to Toledo and again in April they
were sent to Rushylvania.
In May and June troops were present in
Cleveland and Guernsey
County.90 Amid all this
depression Bellamy was vociferously urging
the people to adopt nationalism as the
solution to their problems.91
The meeting of the Populists in Columbus
on August 17 coin-
cided with the meeting of the Labor
party. John McBride, president
of the United Mine Workers, had summoned
the party to meet at
Columbus to consider the possibility of
joining forces with the
Populists, since in his opinion the old
parties could no longer solve
the labor problems.92 One
hundred and fifty labor delegates assem-
bled, and after drafting their platform
they applied to the Populist
convention for admission. The Populists
did not receive them with
open arms. The Nationalists led by Mr.
Cobb were in opposition
because they did not want the Populists
outnumbered by the labor
men. There was another fear on the part
of the Nationalists and
that was that there was a conspiracy to
surrender the party to the
Democrats. In a speech before the
convention, Cobb remarked,
"We are going to watch things very
closely to see that its machinery
does not fall to the hands of any person
who will run it in the
interest of either of the old
parties."93 The fact that the Ohio
Democratic central committee was meeting
in Columbus at the same
time further convinced the Nationalists
that there was an "African
in the wood-pile." The fifty Nationalists from the Western
Reserve
fought the admission of the labor men,
but to no avail. They were
finally admitted as delegates-at-large.
The following day at the joint
convention the Nationalists very
cleverly deprived the labor delegates of
their right to vote. They
had a motion adopted which declared that
the votes were to be
apportioned on the basis of those cast
in 1893. Since the labor
group had not voted that year, they
were, therefore, deprived of their
vote. The convention then proceeded to
select an all-Populist slate
for the state offices, including again
Judge E. D. Stark, the National-
ist who was the darling of the Western
Reserve clique.94 The labor
90 Philip
D. Jordan, Ohio Comes of Age, 1873-1900, Carl Wittke,
ed., The History
of the State of Ohio (6 vols., Columbus, 1941-44), V (1944), 308.
91 Morgan, Edward Bellamy, 284-285.
92 Ohio State Journal, August 8,
1894.
93 Ibid., August 16, 1894.
94 Ibid., August 18, 1894.
168
OHIO ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
platform was adopted almost entirely
since it was not far removed
from the Populists'.95 John
Kircher, a Nationalist from the Frank-
lin Club, objected to the clauses about
government ownership, but
he was overwhelmingly defeated.96
This convention was to mark the zenith
of the political power
of the Nationalists in Ohio. Nearly one
fourth of the delegates were
followers of Bellamy. Dr. L. B.
Tuckerman of the Franklin Club
was chairman of the resolutions
committee. David Rankin of the
same club was the guiding force of the
permanent organization com-
mittee, while his fellow club member
Hugo Preyer was chairman of
the state central committee. John
Kircher was active on the rules
and orders committee. His orthodoxy,
however, was seriously in
question by 1894, especially after his
opposition to the platform.
The campaign that year revived a bit of
the vigor of 1891, but
even with the infusion of new blood the
party did not cut the figure
it predicted.
McBride was alleged to control 120,000
votes.97 This figure was
seriously questioned by the Ohio
State Journal which wrote, "Popu-
lism is dying"; its votes
"were restricted to a class so they could
not survive." The writer then put
his finger on the fundamental
weakness of the party. "Such tenets
in their creed as may chance
to excite general interest will always
find better and more powerful
championship in one or the other of the
great organizations."98
The results were disappointing, for even
with the coalition the
party polled only 49,495 votes.99
During 1895 the party was still
controlled largely by the
Western Reserve Nationalist clique. Dr.
Tuckerman was chairman
of the resolutions committee. Hugo
Preyer was presiding officer
of the convention when it met at
Columbus on August 2, as well as
chairman of the central committee.
Rankin, Kircher, Edmund
Vail, and George Groot were all in key
positions. The Cleveland
Nationalists introduced several new
planks in the platform, includ-
ing one favoring an eight-hour working
day.100 The party, however,
was in serious danger. It had always
been small, but it was strong
95 Appleton's Annual Cyclopedia, XIX
(1894), 627.
96 Ohio State Journal, August 17, 1894.
97 Ibid., August 18, 1894.
98 Ibid., August 18, 1894.
99 Tribune Almanac, 1895, 306.
100 Appleton's
Annual Cyclopedia, XX (1895), 624.
BELLAMY NATIONALISM IN OHIO 169
because of its efficient leadership
after 1891. Now it was in danger
of splitting. Two forces appeared to
weaken the party. The old
danger that the party would be absorbed
by the Democrats was
revived again when a motion was
introduced to elect a new central
committee which would be better disposed
toward Democratic
fusion. Hugo Preyer recognized what was
afoot and promptly
checked the move. The party was safe
till 1896 when the term
of the committee would expire.101
A second rift occurred between
the Nationalists led by Groot and Stark
and the forces of General
Coxey who was sponsoring a plan for road
improvements and non-
interest-bearing notes. He finally
carried the convention. The
Nationalists were overridden and he was
nominated for governor.
He polled 52,675 votes, which was the
largest number ever received
by a Populist candidate in Ohio.102
The Nationalists were seriously
weakened. John Kircher, a
strong leader from Cleveland, abandoned
the cause. David Rankin,
another Franklin Club man, supported
Coxey in 1895. The blow
finally came in 1896 when the Populists
elected a new central com-
mittee which was agreeable to fusion
with the Democrats. With
the Nationalists disposed of, the two
parties fused in August. E.J.
Blandin withdrew from the ticket in
favor of Everett Stark for
judge. This was a sop for the
Nationalists. Thomas J. Creager
was substituted for Patrick McKeown as
candidate for dairy and
food commissioner.103
After this election the Nationalists
passed almost entirely from
the Ohio scene. Nor was this true only
of Ohio. Bellamy, survey-
ing the wreckage from his vantage point
in Boston, wrote, "We are
left practically without a party."
He still wanted to go on and try
again. "We do not want any more
fooling, the country is ready
for plain talk," he wrote, but he
was soon to realize that the oppor-
tunity to win was gone forever.104
A full analysis of the accomplishments
of the Nationalists and
the reasons for their lack of success
are treated in detail by Arthur
Morgan, but one might properly inquire
as to the accomplishments
of the clubs in Ohio.
101 Ohio State Journal, August 2, 1895.
102 Tribune Almanac, 1896, 252.
103 Appleton's Annual Cyclopedia, XXI (1896), 619.
104 Morgan, Edward Bellamy, 286.
170
OHIO ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
They were in the vanguard of every fight
in Cleveland,
Columbus, Akron, Dayton, and Cincinnati
on problems of municipal
ownership and reform. They fought the
battle for other cities by
carrying their case right to the state
legislature. In cooperation
with the Farmers' Alliance they created
the Ohio Populist party and
provided the leaders of it from 1893 to
1895. They fought unsuc-
cessfully against the perversion of
Bellamy's ideals by the Demo-
crats in 1896. The Ohio Nationalists in
1891 had given a mild
Nationalist flavor to the Populist
platform adopted at Cincinnati.
Their failure was due primarily to the
greatness of the odds
against them. Ohio was a Republican
state and she did not take
kindly to unorthodox movements. The
voters felt that in time they
would get redress from the Republicans.
As Rev. E. Daniels wrote
(and his statement seems to express the
view of the majority of the
Ohio electorate), " I have never
voted anything but the Republican
ticket, for I believe that when the
necessity arises, the Republican
party which has stood for centralization
and organic unity, will be
the party which will take hold of this
matter."105
105 New Nation, III (1893), 70.